Hi David, On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 4:49 PM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> From: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 19:21:19 +0100 >> >>> Prior to this patch we were using a hardcoded RGMII TX clock delay of >>> 2ns (= 1/4 cycle of the 125MHz RGMII TX clock). This value works for >>> many boards, but unfortunately not for all (due to the way the actual >>> circuit is designed, sometimes because the TX delay is enabled in the >>> PHY, etc.). Making the TX delay on the MAC side configurable allows us >>> to support all possible hardware combinations. >>> >>> This allows fixing a compatibility issue on some boards, where the >>> RTL8211F PHY is configured to generate the TX delay. We can now turn >>> off the TX delay in the MAC, because otherwise we would be applying the >>> delay twice (which results in non-working TX traffic). >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Tested-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Is this really the safest thing to do? >> >> If you say the existing hard-coded setting of 1/4 cycle works on most >> boards, and what you're trying to do is override it with an OF >> property value for boards where the existing setting does not work, >> then you _must_ use a default value that corresponds to what the >> existing code does not when you don't see this new OF property. > it's a bit more complicated in reality: 1/4 cycle works when the TX > delay of the RTL8211F PHY is turned off (until recently it was always > enabled for phy-mode RGMII). > >> So please retain the current behavior of the 1/4 cycle TX delay >> setting when you don't see the amlogic,tx-delay-ns property. >> >> I really think you risk breaking existing boards by not doing so, >> unless you can have this patch tested on every such board that exists >> and I don't think you really can feasibly and rigorously do that. > there's a patch in my follow-up series which adds the 2ns to the .dts > for all RGMII based boards: [0] (and I would keep these even if we had > a default value, just to make it explicit and thus easier to > understand for other people). > however, we can add the 2ns default back (I can do this if you want - > Rob Herring was unhappy with the missing documentation of this default > value [1] - so note to myself: take care of that as well). but then we > have to decide when to apply this default value: only when we're in > RGMII mode or also in any of the RGMII_*ID modes? > > please let me know how we should proceed gentle ping - what is your opinion on this? Regards, Martin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
